Author
Topic: Science and Awareness (Read 11863 times)

I will state that the following is philosophical(but purely logical) and not scientific, I myself being a strong advocate of science. I can also hypothesis that the probability of the following being wrong is very low.

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that matter and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing - a somewhat unfamiliar concept to the average mind." - Albert Einstein

Well, that thing has to be everything in the universe.

What every scientific experiment shows is that everything that is physical can only do the following-

1. Move(exists over different dimensions) or have the potential to.2. Transform or have the potential to. Transformations only change the following: A. The way something is arranged. B. The way something moves. C. The way something affects other things.

What I know about the brain, is that if these are in fact absolute laws of physics, then the brain must be limited by them. The brain can do many things, like organize an array of molecules by using electrons as fuel, creating a chemical image. It can send "information", which is really just a transformed replication of matter and energy outside of the brain, or on "information" already in the brain. Clearly, for a brain to have an awareness, it must have evolved at least an illusion of one, otherwise it would not be able to comprehend this awareness that actually brings us here.

If awareness was only an illusion, this discussion wouldn't matter- everything would be arbitrary, and we wouldn't be inside ourselves actually seeing and perceiving all of this.

If matter and energy are limited to the laws listed above, which show, that the universe really is only a lot of movement of a substance, then why would it just create something new- the absolute awareness that we are seeing and perceiving every moment?

Anything past this point is extremely complicated.

There is one other thing that would have to be true, what causes awareness would still have to be energy, as it acts on the brain and causes change within it, but if it breaks laws that define physical energy, then what kind of new substance is it?

I dare any of you to find a REAL flaw in my thinking, with logical evidence to the contrary. With this argument, so many times, I only get a blank accusation that I don't know what I'm talking about without any real evidence to suggest that I am actually wrong. If you say that you won't believe anything that science proves- go ahead. It really can't be proven. However, its really hard to ignore a lot of logical evidence... I'm not asking you to believe it. Just to consider it as a possibility, and actually try to find errors in it, so that I may improve it.

So, don't give me those arguments, I already know.

UPDATE:

The human brain is a collection of quarks and the possible higgs particle, with a bit of kinetic, thermal, and couple other kinds of energy. Thats really all the brain is. What does it matter how its organized? Its arbitrary. Therefore, according to science, awareness does not exist, except for as an evolutionary illusion. But, somehow, there is being, and we are clearly here.

I'm not even implying religion, I just want to leave this information to you, so that you can interpret what awareness is.

P.S. This conclusion is a simplification of what I came to when I was an existential cynic- subconsciously atheist. It was after I had a really loose spiritual view on life, then it was shattered. I then recovered by thinking only logically. My thinking has become so grossly literal that I have to think a while to accept an abstract statement. I also understand the true boundaries of atheism- if you understood it in a real conceptual sense, you'd want to kill yourself out of curiousity- not to see if there's anything, or because you see anything, but because, you want to see if you'd feel anything! It was a funny time, but I also just felt numb- like I didn't exist at all.

Perhaps during that time, I understood this subconsciously, but attributed awareness to being physical.

I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking what consciousness is?

I'm am asking what awareness is, because I know its not phyiscal- if the rules I listed above are true, and are in fact the limitations on all matter and energy. I'm a strong advocate of science, and of logic.

I'm afraid that I don't follow what your point is. Are you simply claiming that you don't understand how consciousness can exist without hypothesising a god or soul or something?

Not even hypothesizing that its God or a soul because logic doesn't show that. However, probability does point to that in light of this. It doesn't show a man with a white beard sitting up in a cloud though, obviously.

Think of it- what those laws I listed above say is that everything is an arbitrary substance, if it only changes the way it is arranged. So, what I am getting at, is that its not possible that its the brain's complexity that makes awareness if energy and matter only do what those laws confine them to do.

And the point of it is, that every scientific experiment has never shown energy leaving the bounds of those rules!

This makes a God, of a new kind, a very reasonable idea. Not a deity, but just something that is likely aware, that existence is at the mercy of.

I'm am asking what awareness is, because I know its not phyiscal- if the rules I listed above are true, and are in fact the limitations on all matter and energy. I'm a strong advocate of science, and of logic.

You did nothing to show it wasn't physical. You simply stated that it wasn't. You said

"There is one other thing that would have to be true, what causes awareness would still have to be energy, as it acts on the brain and causes change within it, but if it breaks laws that define physical energy, then what kind of new substance is it?"

but I saw nothing before this that led to the assumpsion that it breaks physical laws. Why do you think it breaks physical laws?

So, is this something we evolved too, or something that has always been?

Logged

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;I will choose a path that's clearI will choose freewill.~Neil Peart~

Yeah I hear ya freak! I'm trying to follow too, but I too must be slow.Maybe it was the way he worded it?

Logged

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;I will choose a path that's clearI will choose freewill.~Neil Peart~

So, is this something we evolved too, or something that has always been?

Well, we had to have evolved to the illusion of awareness. But, we're actually here experiencing awareness...

In a nutshell, I was just saying that matter and energy is just a substance moving around, and nothing more. So, somehow, awareness appears. I am telling you that, those rules I listed above are the most basic laws of physics, that can be applied to and seen in every experiment, whether you're tossing an apple into the air, or starting up a 27 km particle accelerator ring. Nothing we've observed has EVER broken those rules- except awareness. So, if all matter and energy is physical, and everything physical is limited by those rules, then AWARENESS IS NOT PHYSICAL.

So, is this something we evolved too, or something that has always been?

Well, we had to have evolved to the illusion of awareness. But, we're actually here experiencing awareness...

In a nutshell, I was just saying that matter and energy is just a substance moving around, and nothing more. So, somehow, awareness appears. I am telling you that, those rules I listed above are the most basic laws of physics, that can be applied to and seen in every experiment, whether you're tossing an apple into the air, or starting up a 27 km particle accelerator ring. Nothing we've observed has EVER broken those rules- except awareness. So, if all matter and energy is physical, and everything physical is limited by those rules, then AWARENESS IS NOT PHYSICAL.

Yes, but those basic rules of physics are that matter and energy move around, not that it "just moves around and nothing else", which actually contradicts what you originally said. You haven't shown that consciousness isn't a product of matter and energy moving around or that it somehow breaks those rules.

And your original rule is only true up to a point. The law of gravity doesn't move around, for example.

I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking what consciousness is?

I'm am asking what awareness is, because I know its not phyiscal- if the rules I listed above are true, and are in fact the limitations on all matter and energy. I'm a strong advocate of science, and of logic.

Ok, good. That's a real question. It's a good question, and it's one science doesn't have a solid answer for yet. And that's Ok.

Science does know some things about awareness however. Gorillas and dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror, dogs and cats don't. However, dogs, cats, squirrels, horses and most mammalian life appears to have some problem-solving capability. Fish and reptiles do NOT. Gorillas and dolphins appear to be able to conceptualize things in an abstract manner, although to a much more limited degree than humans. They BOTH use and create tools. They appear to 'think' about a problem and come up with a solution. However, their capacity is very limited. They don't think about black holes, or even what 'thought' is. They seem to be limited to immediate and pressing matters, like: "how do I get the ants out of the anthill?", or "how do I open that clam to eat the soft parts?"

So, I want to caution you about the difference between 'awareness' and 'abstraction'. The mind is definitely made up of matter, and that matter follows physical rules. This doesn't mean that there is any physical 'truth' to abstract thought, however.

Honestly, and I know this is starting to get technical, but the best work being done on what constitutes 'consciousness' or 'awareness' doesn't come from medicine or psychology. It comes from computer sciences, specifically from Artificial Intelligence. In order to recreate 'consciousness' we need to know what it actually is. And there isn't a good answer yet. One school of thought says that we might be able to recreate 'consciousness', even without knowing what it is, simply by trying to duplicate various relevant components. Basically, build a computer that can LEARN (which we CAN do) and give it robotic arms, eyes, ears and then let it work out the rest for itself. See if we can get it to 'realize' that it can move its arms and eyes. Akin to how a baby 'finds its hands'. See if we can get it to 'understand' human language simply by connecting the vocal patterns with actual consequences in physical reality. etc, etc.

Concerning human consciousness, one idea that I think makes a lot of sense is this:

The brain is basically a form of biological computer. It operates on a totally different set of rules than electronic ones, but overall, that's what it does. This biologic hardware is simultaneously running many, many programs and functions (in the software sense). Each of these programs run things like your heart beat, breathing, digestive processes, blood pressure, blinking the eyes, sensory inputs, etc. The theory then says that 'consciousness' is a program that monitors the other programs and produces an overall 'status' of self. Specifically, it links memory, sensory input and situational awareness to construct an image of self and problem solving.

This is, of course, a gross simplification. The 'consciousness' program is clearly extremely complex. However, since we can observe animals displaying rudimentary versions of this, it's quite clear that it has been 'under development' for a very long time. The human consciousness is likely the product of a minor genetic mutation, affecting the brain, that allows us to abstract to a MUCH greater degree than the rest of the animal kingdom. A minor change in the linkage of neurons that produced a major benefit. This would clearly have been a MAJOR advantage to proto-humans, and therefore the mutation quickly dominated the gene pool. In this sense, consciousness itself, is an abstraction within the brain.

Yes, but those basic rules of physics are that matter and energy move around, not that it "just moves around and nothing else", which actually contradicts what you originally said. You haven't shown that consciousness isn't a product of matter and energy moving around or that it somehow breaks those rules.

And your original rule is only true up to a point. The law of gravity doesn't move around, for example.

The Earth is moving. What did we do, leave gravity behind? I'm not floating.

Thanks for the laugh.

Gravity still is within those rules-

Moves or has the potential to.Trasnforms or has the potential to.

The transformation of gravity into something else, which would require pretty much releasing all the atomic energy in the earth, which would destroy at least our solar system, but it would still not become anything other than energy or matter.

"You haven't shown that consciousness isn't a product of matter and energy moving around or that it somehow breaks those rules."

Oh, did you finally realize that awareness isn't energy or matter yet?

If the definition of awareness is literally being aware, not just being calculated, would you deny that you have such an awareness?

[1]The force of gravity do to the earth moves around, not the law of gravity.

[2]No kidding.

[3]Is english not your first language? That response makes zero sense.

[4]I never denied anything of the sort. You answered none of my questions. To call your reasoning in this thread laughable would be to give it to much credit.

1. A law is a concept that exists only as electrical signals/chemical images in the brain. "The force of gravity [due] to the earth"-nice grammar.

2. Yeah, its funny.

3. Yes, the response makes perfect sense. You said that I haven't proven that it isn't a product of enery and matter, when, if you were following the laws of physics, you'd say it is energy and matter. Who's got the grasp on the English language?

4. You didn't ask any questions. "To call your reasoning in this thread laughable would be to give it [too] much credit." Its "too," not "to." The statement is also a blind accusation based on no evidence, at least not given. As I said, I didn't want any of that, because its pointless.

Ok, good. That's a real question. It's a good question, and it's one science doesn't have a solid answer for yet[1]. And that's Ok.

Science does know some things about awareness however. Gorillas and dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror, dogs and cats don't. However, dogs, cats, squirrels, horses and most mammalian life appears to have some problem-solving capability. Fish and reptiles do NOT. Gorillas and dolphins appear to be able to conceptualize things in an abstract manner, although to a much more limited degree than humans. They BOTH use and create tools. They appear to 'think' about a problem and come up with a solution. However, their capacity is very limited. They don't think about black holes, or even what 'thought' is. They seem to be limited to immediate and pressing matters, like: "how do I get the ants out of the anthill?", or "how do I open that clam to eat the soft parts?"

So, I want to caution you about the difference between 'awareness' and 'abstraction'. The mind is definitely made up of matter, and that matter follows physical rules. This doesn't mean that there is any physical 'truth' to abstract thought, however.

Honestly, and I know this is starting to get technical, but the best work being done on what constitutes 'consciousness' or 'awareness' doesn't come from medicine or psychology. It comes from computer sciences, specifically from Artificial Intelligence. In order to recreate 'consciousness' we need to know what it actually is. And there isn't a good answer yet. One school of thought says that we might be able to recreate 'consciousness', even without knowing what it is, simply by trying to duplicate various relevant components. Basically, build a computer that can LEARN (which we CAN do) and give it robotic arms, eyes, ears and then let it work out the rest for itself. See if we can get it to 'realize' that it can move its arms and eyes. Akin to how a baby 'finds its hands'. See if we can get it to 'understand' human language simply by connecting the vocal patterns with actual consequences in physical reality. etc, etc.

Concerning human consciousness, one idea that I think makes a lot of sense is this:

The brain is basically a form of biological computer. It operates on a totally different set of rules than electronic ones, but overall, that's what it does. This biologic hardware is simultaneously running many, many programs and functions (in the software sense). Each of these programs run things like your heart beat, breathing, digestive processes, blood pressure, blinking the eyes, sensory inputs, etc. The theory then says that 'consciousness' is a program that monitors the other programs and produces an overall 'status' of self. Specifically, it links memory, sensory input and situational awareness to construct an image of self and problem solving.

This is, of course, a gross simplification. The 'consciousness' program is clearly extremely complex. However, since we can observe animals displaying rudimentary versions of this, it's quite clear that it has been 'under development' for a very long time. The human consciousness is likely the product of a minor genetic mutation, affecting the brain, that allows us to abstract to a MUCH greater degree than the rest of the animal kingdom. A minor change in the linkage of neurons that produced a major benefit. This would clearly have been a MAJOR advantage to proto-humans, and therefore the mutation quickly dominated the gene pool. In this sense, consciousness itself, is an abstraction within the brain.

1. Who knows if there will ever be an answer. If it is not physical, there will never be an answer. There's no way of confirming that an advanced robot gained an awareness.

2. In my first post, I separate abstraction from awareness. Abstraction is energy and matter forming signals, images, etc. about itself in a body of atoms made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. The fact that becomes something new in awareness is, really, quite bizarre. Really, the laws of physics seem to say, we shouldn't be here. Not to mean we shouldn't be here as humans, we simply shouldn't be aware. This matter and energy is literal awarness, not abstraction. Abstraction, yet again is ONLY movement.

1. A law is a concept that exists only as electrical signals/chemical images in the brain.

It's a general trend in the universe. Point being, conciousness may only exist as electrical signals/chemicals in the brain.

Quote

"The force of gravity [due] to the earth"-nice grammar.

If you focused a little more on your thinking and a little less on spelling, maybe you wouldn't have a half a dozen people saying they have no idea what you were talking about in your first post. Your reasoning makes zero sense, you still haven't stated it in a way that forms a coherent argument.

Quote

Yes, the response makes perfect sense. You said that I haven't proven that it isn't a product of enery and matter, when, if you were following the laws of physics, you'd say it is energy and matter. Who's got the grasp on the English language?

Not you. I never said it was or wasn't energy and matter, I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning that you have not responded to. Spend less time trying to get a "gotcha" by playing semantics games and make an actual point. A thing can be a product of something and be the thing. Life is a prime example, if someone says life is a product of chemical processes, it was take some kind of massive act of idiocy to see that as claiming life does not contain chemicals. Whichever wording you want to use, you still haven't shown either to be true.

The statement is also a blind accusation based on no evidence, at least not given. As I said, I didn't want any of that, because its pointless.

It would be a blind accusation if I had never read your posts, as I have, and I have pointed out the problem with them, it is neither blind nor based on no evidence, and your claim that none was given is just a lie. Ironically, that just provides more evidence proving my point.

[1]1. A law is a concept that exists only as electrical signals/chemical images in the brain.

It's a general trend in the universe. Point being, conciousness may only exist as electrical signals/chemicals in the brain.

[2]

Quote

"The force of gravity [due] to the earth"-nice grammar.

If you focused a little more on your thinking and a little less on spelling, maybe you wouldn't have a half a dozen people saying they have no idea what you were talking about in your first post. Your reasoning makes zero sense, you still haven't stated it in a way that forms a coherent argument.

[3]

Quote

Yes, the response makes perfect sense. You said that I haven't proven that it isn't a product of enery and matter, when, if you were following the laws of physics, you'd say it is energy and matter. Who's got the grasp on the English language?

Not you. I never said it was or wasn't energy and matter, I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning that you have not responded to. Spend less time trying to get a "gotcha" by playing semantics games and make an actual point. A thing can be a product of something and be the thing. Life is a prime example, if someone says life is a product of chemical processes, it was take some kind of massive act of idiocy to see that as claiming life does not contain chemicals. Whichever wording you want to use, you still haven't shown either to be true.

The statement is also a blind accusation based on no evidence, at least not given. As I said, I didn't want any of that, because its pointless.

It would be a blind accusation if I had never read your posts, as I have, and I have pointed out the problem with them, it is neither blind nor based on no evidence, and your claim that none was given is just a lie. Ironically, that just provides more evidence proving my point.

1. My point, chemical and electrical signals should not become literally aware of themselves. This awareness that I speak of is not the abstract picture the brain creates, when it moves electrons, chemical images, etc. around <------THATS ALL IT DOES.

2. It was seriously bothering me because it was so obvious.

3. Fine, you got me. Doesn't change the validity of my argument.

4. Everything is answered, if not there, it is here below.

5. Again, a baseless, blank, and somewhat stupid accusation. Again, you fail to tell me logically why I am wrong. You take pride in your atheism, and now that pride might finally be working against you, at least, thats how you make it seem.

"Yes, but those basic rules of physics are that matter and energy move around, not that it "just moves around and nothing else", which actually contradicts what you originally said."

The entire point of the rules is to show that energy is really nothing more than movement. Those basic rules show that energy and matter only move. The transformation rule itself is just to help people get over their subjective/abstract veiw of transformation.

My argument makes perfect sense, get over it. The irony to you is, that everything does add up, with science included, and the conclusion is based on logic.

Now, we've been in a mostly pointless argument because of a misunderstanding of what the other has to say. Now, why you have to say that my argument is stupid with no real background is understandable... This idea is fairly radical, but makes sense...

Now, lets have a more peaceful discussion, because this arguing over misunderstandings and poorly written sentences is ridiculous.

FreeThinker, getting a little nasty there. No one is trying to hurt you. We're all just interested in a good debate. You, unfortunately, are on the one-vs-many side in this debate, but thats cause you started the thread. We're all just trying to think!

I'm actually lost trying to understand why you think those 'laws' you referenced prohibit consciousness. Could you make a post detailing which theories you are using, and if you can, what the math is that leads you to the conclusion that consciousness is inexplicable. I'd love to know your thought process.

Thanks!

Logged

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

FreeThinker, getting a little nasty there. No one is trying to hurt you. We're all just interested in a good debate. You, unfortunately, are on the one-vs-many side in this debate, but thats cause you started the thread. We're all just trying to think!

I'm actually lost trying to understand why you think those 'laws' you referenced prohibit consciousness. Could you make a post detailing which theories you are using, and if you can, what the math is that leads you to the conclusion that consciousness is inexplicable. I'd love to know your thought process.

Thanks!

My thought process is logic filling in for what science can't do, and probably never will. What I use in logic is based on facts. Whether or not this is true depends on if the rules I listed in the first post are true or false. So far, every scientific experiment has only showed those rules. How a scientific experiment could show otherwise is beyond me. How could a scientific experiment show anything other than movement, or the result of it? It takes movement to affect something else, so what we use to detect in experiments, must have moved. When I say movement, I mean all movement, including the movement of valence electrons on an atom to move to other atoms forming a chemical compound.

Awareness causes us to actually be here as a person. For a brain to be able to conceive awareness, it must evolve an illusion of one. However, psychology alone cannot account for the awareness, because the brain's functions are subjected to being the results of pure movement.

Whatever awareness is, the brain responds to it, so the awareness has to be energy of some sort, otherwise it would not affect the brain. But how that energy causes awareness cannot be the product of simply movement, because awareness is doing something other than moving-it is causing us all to literally be here, in a human brain.

I also didn't mean to get nasty, the person I was debating with was not reasonable. You ARE reasonable, thankfully. I hope you have the gumption, courage, and openess to take a moment to try to see what I'm saying from a mechanical standpoint. Mechanically, it makes perfect sense. One can literally know this, but its almost magical that one cannot explain it in English.

I also can't help but ask, am I the first human being on the planet to ever think of this as I have? Coming to this conclusion was definetely delicate and based on probability. A whole series of events had to happen in my life for me to actually think like this, and then come to this... Whatever it is, I feel awfully alone. If I didn't have faith in one thing, I'd be an atheist now; The way everything works is perfect.

Now, I don't need faith in that, to believe on God. Faith in that lead me to this, now, the idea that there is no God seems highly unlikely.

My point, chemical and electrical signals should not become literally aware of themselves.

Why? You keep stating this but that's not the same as making a logical argument.

Quote

Fine, you got me. Doesn't change the validity of my argument.

Yes it does. I pointed out where you make a baseless assumption.

Quote

You take pride in your atheism, and now that pride might finally be working against you, at least, thats how you make it seem.

You've made a number of statements like that and that is the reason for my short patience with you. You're goals and attitude are transparent. You came in here with a "I GOT YOU NOW, STUPID ATHEISTS" attitude, not with curiosity and an open mind. You have not made a logical argument. I've gone through the trouble of pointing out why it is not. You'd done nothing but evade and lie and point out spelling errors. So if you still cannot address the problems I long ago laid out then I guess we are done. Your response to me pointing out a contradiction in your argument is "My argument makes perfect sense, get over it". I know that kind of argument may work very well at whatever junior highschool you attend, but if you're going to try to persuade adults you'll have to grow up.

FreeThinker, getting a little nasty there. No one is trying to hurt you. We're all just interested in a good debate. You, unfortunately, are on the one-vs-many side in this debate, but thats cause you started the thread. We're all just trying to think!

I'm actually lost trying to understand why you think those 'laws' you referenced prohibit consciousness. Could you make a post detailing which theories you are using, and if you can, what the math is that leads you to the conclusion that consciousness is inexplicable. I'd love to know your thought process.

Thanks!

My thought process is logic filling in for what science can't do, and probably never will. What I use in logic is based on facts. Whether or not this is true depends on if the rules I listed in the first post are true or false. So far, every scientific experiment has only showed those rules. How a scientific experiment could show otherwise is beyond me. How could a scientific experiment show anything other than movement, or the result of it? It takes movement to affect something else, so what we use to detect in experiments, must have moved. When I say movement, I mean all movement, including the movement of valence electrons on an atom to move to other atoms forming a chemical compound.

Awareness causes us to actually be here as a person. For a brain to be able to conceive awareness, it must evolve an illusion of one. However, psychology alone cannot account for the awareness, because the brain's functions are subjected to being the results of pure movement.

Whatever awareness is, the brain responds to it, so the awareness has to be energy of some sort, otherwise it would not affect the brain. But how that energy causes awareness cannot be the product of simply movement, because awareness is doing something other than moving-it is causing us all to literally be here, in a human brain.

I also didn't mean to get nasty, the person I was debating with was not reasonable. You ARE reasonable, thankfully. I hope you have the gumption, courage, and openess to take a moment to try to see what I'm saying from a mechanical standpoint. Mechanically, it makes perfect sense. One can literally know this, but its almost magical that one cannot explain it in English.

I also can't help but ask, am I the first human being on the planet to ever think of this as I have? Coming to this conclusion was definetely delicate and based on probability. A whole series of events had to happen in my life for me to actually think like this, and then come to this... Whatever it is, I feel awfully alone. If I didn't have faith in one thing, I'd be an atheist now; The way everything works is perfect.

Now, I don't need faith in that, to believe on God. Faith in that lead me to this, now, the idea that there is no God seems highly unlikely.

The level of awareness in the human mind is directly proportional to the brains ability to accept the perceptions of our sensibilities. Awareness is the by-product of a brain that has deciphered the data that has been perceived and delivered to it by the senses. Therefore rudimentary awareness is completely dependent on a fully functioning and healthy brain that can discern and understand its surroundings through the data sent to it by the senses.

The brain does not respond to or is affected by awareness as you state, it creates it after the fact. The blind person who does not see the post in front of them is going to end up with a goose egg, or the deaf person who does not hear the vicious barking dog coming from behind is in serious trouble. Therefore if the senses are impaired and/or the brain is malfunctioning or damaged, the level of awareness will then be proportional to the impairment and/or damage. When evolution gave birth to our senses is also the time when the brain then began to give birth to awareness. No deception required.

Awareness therefore is not a universal entity as some assume. Not all humans are aware. The level of what it will be in an individual, will rest on the power of ones sensibilities and then the brains power to produce it. Awareness then is not an energy and is only the powerless effect and by-product of the chemical reactions of the brain, which works in codependency with the senses.

It's all physical mate.

IMHO

Logged

"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

The level of awareness in the human mind is directly proportional to the brains ability to accept the perceptions of our sensibilities. Awareness is the by-product of a brain that has deciphered the data that has been perceived and delivered to it by the senses. Therefore rudimentary awareness is completely dependent on a fully functioning and healthy brain that can discern and understand its surroundings through the data sent to it by the senses.

The brain does not respond to or is affected by awareness as you state, it creates it after the fact. The blind person who does not see the post in front of them is going to end up with a goose egg, or the deaf person who does not hear the vicious barking dog coming from behind is in serious trouble. Therefore if the senses are impaired and/or the brain is malfunctioning or damaged, the level of awareness will then be proportional to the impairment and/or damage. When evolution gave birth to our senses is also the time when the brain then began to give birth to awareness. No deception required.

Awareness therefore is not a universal entity as some assume. Not all humans are aware. The level of what it will be in an individual, will rest on the power of ones sensibilities and then the brains power to produce it. Awareness then is not an energy and is only the powerless effect and by-product of the chemical reactions of the brain, which works in codependency with the senses.

It's all physical mate.

IMHO

That bi-product of intelligence- awareness, is what I was talking about the illusion of awareness. For an actual awareness to exist in an evolutionary life form, it needs to develop a system where an illusion of awareness forms. So, if awareness is an illusion, we really shouldn't be here. The entire universe is made up of arbitrary movement. Without this literal awareness, we'd literally be going around like computers, thinking we're aware. But the fact that I am actually in an intelligent animal that observes awareness is something remarkable- and NOT explainable by how the brain works.

The brain forms an abstraction of awareness. I am fully aware of that fact, and need that fact to actually make my point. I also need the fact that we're actually here experiencing this "illusion."

The fact is, awareness is undeniably something new- not energy. Energy only moves, yes in a variety of ways, but everything is just movement- like a bunch of steel ball bearings rolling around in a crate. The only difference is transformation- when something transforms it only changes the way it moves, is arranged and moves other things. I should be able to take out the arranged part in the midst of the fact that energy is infinitely divisible- its a substance made up of infinitesimal points, which makes movement a constant rearrangement. Some things happen in unison.

The human brain might as well be a very complicated abacus. Get what I'm saying yet?

My point, chemical and electrical signals should not become literally aware of themselves.

Why? You keep stating this but that's not the same as making a logical argument.

Quote

Fine, you got me. Doesn't change the validity of my argument.

Yes it does. I pointed out where you make a baseless assumption.

Quote

You take pride in your atheism, and now that pride might finally be working against you, at least, thats how you make it seem.

You've made a number of statements like that and that is the reason for my short patience with you. You're goals and attitude are transparent. You came in here with a "I GOT YOU NOW, STUPID ATHEISTS" attitude, not with curiosity and an open mind. You have not made a logical argument. I've gone through the trouble of pointing out why it is not. You'd done nothing but evade and lie and point out spelling errors. So if you still cannot address the problems I long ago laid out then I guess we are done. Your response to me pointing out a contradiction in your argument is "My argument makes perfect sense, get over it". I know that kind of argument may work very well at whatever junior highschool you attend, but if you're going to try to persuade adults you'll have to grow up.

Man, I already posted that I wanted a truce, because this is going nowhere, and I am having a hard time arguing with YOU but not everyone else.

If you do NOT agree to restart, and backtrack, I will choose to ignore you, unless you maybe add in some point irrelevant to this argument that ME AND YOU are in, because this has become a convoluted mess of an argument.